Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 19, 2012 12:45am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

I have been doing a bit of extra research into copyright term and renewal. It appears that date-in-notice may be a bit of a red herring for films 1949 and earlier.

Looking at the 1909 Copyright Act I found that copyright lasts for 28 years from the date of first publication. Renewal was available if it was lodged within one year of the 28th Anniversary of the publication. There is no mention of variation to the anniversary date based on year in notice.

The Court decision Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. vs Jerry Vogel Music Co. C.C.A.N.Y. (3-18-1947) suggests that for works with a predated copyright notice's renewal window is the 28th Calendar year from the Year-in-Notice.

This would mean that a film registered as a published work (LP number) on 15 July 1932 would generally be eligible for renewal at anytime during the year before 15 July 1960. If it contains a 1931 notice its renewal period becomes anytime during the calendar year 1959 (i.e the 28th Calendar years from the year in notice).

Post dated (more than one year) and undated notices are invalid.

Anyone using the chart that often gets quoted should amended it to:

1949 and before:
Correct Notice
Timely registration (within 3 months of publication)
Timely renewal (within the 28th anniversary year window based on the publication/registration date or 28th calendar year window based on year-in-notice for predated notices)
copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely registered and renewed

1950 (this is the transitional year for the effects of the 1976 act to come in):
Correct Notice
Timely registration (within 3 months of publication)
OR Late Term Registration (at any time during the 28 year term)
Timely renewal (within the 27th-28th anniversary year window or the 28th calandar year window based on year in notice)
copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely renewed

1950-1963
Correct Notice
Registration (at any time during the first 28 year term)
Timely renewal (within the 28th calendar year window based on year in notice)
copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice or not timely renewed

1964-1977
Correct Notice
copyright could be forfeited if published without correct notice.
Registration is only required for evidentiary purposes in pursuing damages actions and can occur at anytime during the copyright term.

1978-1989
Notice
copyright could be forfeited if published without notice provided
steps were not taken to rectify the ommission within 5 years from
publication (this could include including notices in later editions or
registration.). If a notice was included registration is only required for evidentiary purposes in pursuing damages actions.

1989-present:
Work is created and or published
work is covered by copyright unless dedicated to the public domain or
released through an alternative licence.


This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 05:20:22

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 06:29:39

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 06:37:12

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 07:45:38

Attachment: Sec_23_1909.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billymays55 Date: Oct 18, 2012 5:17pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

Mr. "Video Cellar"

It would seem you think you know everything about copyright law? And you for some reason have been appointed "god"
on this website regarding what is and is NOT public domain?
But now are admitting to giving every person posting on this forum and uploading films on this site that you had no idea about when a renewal was valid or not? And even better yet you are telling anyone who uploads films and researching them using your rules that a film that is public domain is liable to be sued? And to quote you:

"The reality is that once something goes up here and has a PD marker attached to it goes on 100s of mirrors and other
video sites. That doesn't impress some copyright owners - even the owners of catalog titles. A copyright owner always
has the option of pursuing the uploader either before or after a DMCA take down."


Well since you are the authority and posted this it would seem to fall back on you as everyone that is uploading films is going by your advice and rules and regulations that have been posted here for years.

I think you would be the one that should have legal action taken against as you are the "go to" guy if a film is Public Domain or not, so if anyone does get sued they can just bring up your post stating you "the almighty knowing Video-Cellar said it was public domain"


The Film Superlist has been out for 30 years and is considered a reliable source in the industry for public domain films for years and it has been updated as recent ans 2007. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_Superlist

It also makes no mention of your renewal policy that you just made up today as "new policy" on this forum. I don't know about anyone else but I'm sticking with a US copyright attorney and a book that has been around over 30 years and has since been updated.

Again read my attached page of a scan from the FILM SUPERLIST MOTION PICTURES IN THE U.S. PUBLIC DOMAIN 1940-1949 VOLUME 2.

I have some questions for you!
Are you even an attorney?

What credentials do you have?

Who made you copyright authority for this site and message board?

And you don't even live in the US but are supposedly an expert on US laws? Why?

And what is your contact info so if anyone gets sued they can use your posts as to why they believed the film to be public domain.

PS I also find it extremely irritating that you use the word "lodge" it is incorrect English for Americans
that live here and speak in our culture....the correct term is "filed" NOT lodged.

Attachment: superlist.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 19, 2012 2:53pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

First about the Superlist page you have quoted:
Why do you keep pointing to that page in "The Film Superlist"?

Lets have a look at the two examples you want to rely on.

1. Scientifiquiz. The argument is that the calendar year window is used to calculate the renewal window for works with an earlier year-in-notice. Under the rational used in this example, this would mean that the correct renewal window for Mannequin would be 1 Jan 1965 to 31 Dec 1965. When was it renewed again? 28 January 1965?

2. The Public domain distributor in question who was selling "An Itch in Time" contests that the film's renewal was late because it was "PUBLISHED" in 1946 and the 28th year renewal window is calculated based on that year. A 1976 renewal would be 2 years late.

These examples seem to support everything I am saying.

Secondly to your questions:

No I don't think I know everything about copyright. I think I have a lot or resources, books and information about copyright that I use to help people with their questions.

I don't remember being appointed "God". I must have missed that post.

Not admitting that I had no idea when any renewal was valid. Just admitting that I was previously unaware that the "Calendar Year Window" (must acknowledge the people at copyrightdata.com for creating the terms "calendar year window" and "anniversary year window") had to be taken into account for earlier years-in-notice on these works. A minor change to a still useful chart I thought. Why would I have to accept liability if I said the film was NOT PD. For the most part, people approach uploading to this site from the perspective of finding PD movies that aren't on here and uploading them. Of course, some others seem to be approaching it from the perspective of attempting to find seemingly copyright movies that aren't on here trying to find some mistake in the copyright registration and declaring the film PD or: the wrong approach.

I have already discussed the Film Superlist. Good resource. It seems to support what I'm saying. Not without its errors and mistakes, but overall a good source.

Are you even an attorney?
No. I teach and manage a archive movie business. Said this many times on here.

What credentials do you have?
Bachelor Arts/Law, Bachelor Teaching, Masters Educational Research

Who made you copyright authority for this site and message board?

5 years ago copyright data for renewals pre-1978 was scarce on the internet. I had the books and the time.

And you don't even live in the US but are supposedly an expert on US laws? Why?

I am only interested in copyright law. I have studied in detail a dozen international copyright systems. I also did comparative study of US and Australian Law as one of the major legal issues when I was studying was the implementation of the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement and its impact on our copyright laws. Lastly, I have worked in a family business distributing public domain films for most of my life. It is knowledge that you just have to have.

And what is your contact info so if anyone gets sued they can use your posts as to why they believed the film to be public domain.

I rarely definitively say that a film is or is not PD and especially have not instructed a person to upload a film that was renewed in the way that you assert makes it public domain (I mean that really is the problem here isn't it?) my contact details are on my channel page.

PS I also find it extremely irritating that you use the word "lodge" it is incorrect English for Americans
that live here and speak in our culture....the correct term is "filed" NOT lodged.


No, you have it around the wrong way. Even in American usage a copyright claimant can "lodge" their registration form with the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office then dutifully "files" the registration within its records and registers. For as long as the standard American dictionaries define the transitive verb form of "lodge" as to "lay something before the proper authority" I'll continue to use the word.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 06:24:39

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 06:35:18

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 21:53:42

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Moongleam Date: Oct 19, 2012 5:49am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

All of the veterans here (including me) are very grateful for all of the time you have spent helping us determine whether films are public domain.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the following seems to be a way of being almost absolutely certain of uploading only p.d. movies.

1. Pick a U.S. film released before 1964.

2. Make sure that it seems to be p.d. according to the rules you listed above.

3. Make sure that it is sold by Alpha Video.


This post was modified by Moongleam on 2012-10-19 12:49:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 20, 2012 12:01am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

Yes. I would add to number 3 any other major distributor of PD films including companies like Synergy, Reel, Film Chest, etc. But while always keeping in mind that all of these companies (Alpha included) deal in some licensed copyright material, so availability from "PD distributors" should never be used as a substitute for checking 1 and 2.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: PDpolice Date: Oct 18, 2012 1:43am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

So your threat of civil or criminal penalties is based on 'Red Herrings"?
Your stated on another thread;
"Of course the uploader should have an understanding that the Archive's safe harbor does not extend to them and that even unintential, non-commercial, or unknowing infringement of copyright may leave them liable to civil or criminal penalties. Even after the Archive takes the item down."

Maybe it would help the discussion if the IA or one of the users would list the number of past criminal prosecutions against users on the site.
Of course, this being the Halloween season, you may just be trying to frighten that nice Quigs person.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 18, 2012 11:34pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

No. The "Date in Notice" is the red herring. If you read the post and the section of the law, you would see that the date in notice has no bearing on the calculation of the anniversary window where the copyright is registered under the 1909 act (i.e. films up to 1949). You will note that the renewal registration requirements were changed under the 1976 act and apply to films 1950 onwards, with 1950 being the transitional year in which both regimes applied.

I do not doubt that there has yet to be a conviction or legal action against an individual contributor here. That does not mean that it can't happen or that it has not happened elsewhere. Every contributor should upload in the knowledge that it can happen.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-18 09:36:44

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2012-10-19 06:34:36

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: old-movie-fun Date: Oct 19, 2012 1:01am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

Thank you so much, video-cellar, for having the patience and good humor to respond with civility and intelligence to people that I would have ignored. Because you have, many 'lurkers' like myself have appreciated and absorbed the amazing knowledge and advice that you offer.

Again, thanks!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 19, 2012 3:05am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

Thanks

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: katieq Date: Oct 22, 2012 4:26pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

amazing... how people are so eager to blindly follow

I googled Video-Cellular and found this

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090809164717AASGhN5

my favorite answer is
Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
A fool. Follower, A person without a mind of his own. I hope that person is not you

continue on soliders the blind leading the blinder

Katieq

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 22, 2012 9:51pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

I googled Video-Cellular and found this

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090809164717AASGhN5


If you actually Googled "video-cellar" and not "video-cellular" you would find relevant links to our web page, IA Collection, Playlists, IMDB page, etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: PDpolice Date: Oct 23, 2012 2:05am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

Katieq,
It seems that is the way of this parade. But I need glasses myself. I might point out that someone has needed to modify their replies on this thread seven times so far. At some point they will be completely correct. Then watch out!
The best you can do is to warn new posters occasionally and hope they don’t follow incorrect advice. And be prepared to be referred to in derisive terms by lovers of ‘B’ movies who do not understand the grading system.
As always, read the Internet Archives FAQS, and don’t post obviously copyrighted materials.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Oct 23, 2012 2:37am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

The edits were for minor errors in spelling, grammar and expression. As this issue seems to stem from the misinterpretation of information, I thought fixing the errors as I caught them would prevent the addition of further fuel to the fire.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: larus Date: Oct 22, 2012 8:02am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: Date in Notice and determining renewal period.

I second old-movie-funs's statement: the insights you have provided over the years and your ability to conduct rational discussions without getting emotional are much appreciated.

Thanks again!

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)